{"id":11985,"date":"2025-09-19T10:36:42","date_gmt":"2025-09-19T07:36:42","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/2025\/09\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-19-09-2025\/"},"modified":"2025-09-19T10:36:42","modified_gmt":"2025-09-19T07:36:42","slug":"review-of-echr-decisions-for-19-09-2025","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/2025\/09\/review-of-echr-decisions-for-19-09-2025\/","title":{"rendered":"Review of ECHR decisions for 19\/09\/2025"},"content":{"rendered":"

<\/p>\n

CASE OF FARMANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Farmanyan and Others v. Armenia:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**
\n The European Court of Human Rights found Armenia in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with the deaths of several individuals during the mass protests that followed the 2008 presidential elections. The Court concluded that the use of lethal force by the State was not “absolutely necessary” in most of the cases examined. It also determined that the Armenian authorities failed to conduct an effective investigation into the deaths and did not comply with their obligation to provide all necessary facilities to the Court.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**
\n * The decision addresses nine applications concerning the deaths of relatives of the applicants during the Yerevan protests on March 1-2, 2008.
\n * The Court examined the events leading up to the deaths, including the police operation at Freedom Square and subsequent clashes.
\n * The Court analyzed the use of force by the police, including firearms and special means like tear gas.
\n * It assessed the domestic legal framework and the effectiveness of the investigation into the deaths.
\n * The Court considered evidence from various sources, including forensic reports, witness statements, and reports from parliamentary and international bodies.
\n * The Court found violations of Article 2 (right to life) regarding both the use of force and the lack of an effective investigation.
\n * The Court also found a violation of Article 38 due to the State’s failure to provide necessary facilities to the Court.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions and Importance:**
\n * The Court emphasized that the use of force by law enforcement must be “absolutely necessary” and proportionate, even in quelling riots.
\n * The decision highlights the importance of proper planning and control of police operations to minimize the risk to life.
\n * The Court stressed the need for an effective, independent, and impartial investigation into deaths resulting from the use of force by State agents.
\n * The decision underscores the State’s obligation to provide all necessary facilities to the Court for the effective examination of applications.
\n * The Court awarded damages to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is related to deaths of Ukrainian citizens, so it can be used in future to protect rights of Ukrainians.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF DIMITRIYEV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This judgment concerns several applications against Russia regarding disproportionate measures taken against solo demonstrators. The applicants complained about the termination of their demonstrations, arrests, and convictions for administrative offenses, arguing these measures violated their freedom of expression. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that these measures were not “necessary in a democratic society” and thus violated Article 10 of the Convention. Additionally, some applicants raised other complaints related to issues such as unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, which the Court also found to be violations based on its well-established case-law. The Court decided that a finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for two applicants, while the remaining applicants were awarded specific sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, and the law. The “Law” section addresses the joinder of the applications, the Court’s jurisdiction, and the alleged violations of Article 10 of the Convention. It references previous leading cases, such as *Novikova and Others v. Russia*, to support its findings. The decision also addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law and considers remaining complaints. Finally, it outlines the application of Article 41 of the Convention regarding just satisfaction. There are no indications of changes compared to previous versions, as the judgment focuses on applying existing principles to the specific facts of the cases.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming that disproportionate measures against solo demonstrators violate Article 10 of the Convention. The judgment reinforces the importance of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, even for solo demonstrations. Additionally, the findings of violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and delayed review of convictions highlight critical procedural safeguards that must be respected. The decision also clarifies the Court’s approach to just satisfaction, providing specific guidance on when a finding of a violation is sufficient and when monetary compensation is warranted. **** This decision may be important for Ukrainians, as it highlights the importance of freedom of expression and peaceful assembly, even for solo demonstrations.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF DOBRUSIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s an analysis of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Dobrusin and Others v. Russia*:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the cases of several applicants who were penalized for participating in public assemblies, often related to protests in support of Alexei Navalny, during COVID-19 restrictions. The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants, such as arrests and administrative convictions, were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, awarding sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages to the applicants. The Court emphasized that it had jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia, which were then joined due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them for participating in public assemblies during COVID-19 restrictions and raised other complaints under the Convention.
\n * **Law:**
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court affirmed its jurisdiction over the cases since the events occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
\n * **Alleged Violation of Article 11:** The Court referenced its established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference, finding that the restrictions imposed on the applicants were not necessary in a democratic society, thus violating Article 11.
\n * **Other Alleged Violations:** The Court found additional violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings, referencing previous case-law.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address additional complaints under Article 6, given the findings of violations under Article 11 and other established case-law.
\n * **Application of Article 41:** The Court awarded specific sums to each applicant for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Violation of Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly, even during times of crisis (like a pandemic), and emphasizes that restrictions must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
\n * **Unlawful Detention:** The ruling highlights that detaining individuals solely for the purpose of drawing up administrative offense records is a violation of their rights.
\n * **Impartiality of Tribunal:** The decision underscores the necessity of an impartial tribunal, noting that the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative proceedings can compromise fairness.
\n * **Jurisdiction over Past Events:** The Court explicitly states its jurisdiction over events that occurred before Russia’s exit from the Convention, which is crucial for pending and future cases related to that period.<\/p>\n

**** This decision may be relevant for Ukrainians and Ukraine, especially considering the context of restrictions on public assemblies and potential human rights violations in occupied territories or in cases involving Ukrainian citizens affected by Russian actions before September 16, 2022.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF DYMOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Russia related to interferences with the right to respect for family life stemming from childcare disputes. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russian authorities failed to take adequate measures to assist applicants in reuniting with their children or to fairly balance the interests of all parties involved, leading to violations of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court emphasized that domestic authorities did not act without delay to ensure the best interests of the children were considered and that the decision-making process lacked sufficient protection for the applicants’ interests. While some applicants raised additional complaints under Articles 13 and 14, the Court did not find it necessary to examine the Article 13 complaint separately and rejected the Article 14 complaint. The Court awarded monetary compensation to most of the applicants for non-pecuniary damage, except for the applicant-children in two of the cases, for whom the finding of a violation was considered sufficient just satisfaction.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes a procedural overview, a summary of the facts, a legal analysis, and the Court’s conclusions. The judgment begins by outlining the case’s origin and the applications submitted. It then presents the factual background of each case, focusing on the childcare disputes and the alleged interferences with family life. The legal analysis addresses the joinder of the applications, the Court’s jurisdiction, and the alleged violations of Articles 8, 13, and 14 of the Convention. The Court relies on its previous case law to assess the complaints and determine whether the domestic authorities fulfilled their obligations under Article 8. Finally, the judgment concludes with the Court’s decision, including the findings of violations, the awards for just satisfaction, and the dismissal of other claims.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the State’s obligation to take prompt and effective measures to protect family life in childcare disputes. The Court emphasizes the need for domestic authorities to act without delay, balance the interests of all parties, and ensure that decisions are made in the best interests of the child. This decision highlights the importance of fair and thorough decision-making processes that provide adequate protection for the rights of parents and children involved in childcare disputes. The judgment also clarifies the Court’s approach to just satisfaction, awarding monetary compensation for non-pecuniary damage to most applicants while considering the finding of a violation as sufficient for applicant-children. **** This decision may have implications for Ukrainians, as it addresses cases against Russia related to childcare disputes and the right to family life, which are relevant in the context of ongoing international child abduction and custody battles involving Ukrainian children.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KLYMENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Klymenko and Others v. Russia decision:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 8 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in a series of cases concerning disputes related to childcare. The applicants complained about the determination and enforcement of child residence orders, contact rights, and international child abduction. The Court concluded that Russian authorities failed to take prompt and adequate measures to reunite the applicants with their children or to fairly balance the interests of all parties involved, including the best interests of the children. The Court also addressed issues related to jurisdiction, particularly concerning decisions rendered in Crimea, and confirmed its competence to examine cases that occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. In one case, the Court also found a violation related to discrimination on grounds of sex, highlighting gender stereotypes and patrilineal practices.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction over cases where domestic decisions were made in Crimea, citing Russia’s exercise of jurisdiction there since March 18, 2014. It also affirmed its jurisdiction over events that occurred before Russia’s withdrawal from the Convention.
\n * **Article 8 Violation:** The Court found that the Russian authorities failed to take necessary measures to assist applicants in being reunited with their children, protect their interests, and consider the children’s best interests, thus violating Article 8.
\n * **Other Violations:** In one specific case (application no. 23855\/22), the Court found an additional violation under its well-established case-law, related to discrimination.
\n * **Remaining Complaint:** The Court did not find it necessary to separately examine a remaining complaint in application no. 23752\/22, considering its findings on Article 8.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants, considering its case-law and the submitted documents. It determined that the finding of a violation was sufficient just satisfaction for the non-pecuniary damage suffered by the applicant children in certain cases.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Jurisdiction over Crimea:** The decision confirms the ECtHR’s jurisdiction over cases originating from Crimea since March 2014, which is **** for potential future cases involving human rights violations in the region.
\n * **Obligations in Childcare Disputes:** The decision emphasizes the positive obligations of domestic authorities to act promptly and effectively in childcare disputes, ensuring the best interests of the child and fair balancing of the parties’ rights.
\n * **International Child Abduction:** The decision highlights the importance of complying with the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and ensuring that domestic courts adequately interpret and apply it.
\n * **Discrimination:** The decision addresses discrimination based on gender stereotypes and patrilineal practices, particularly in the context of the North Caucasus region, which is **** for understanding the Court’s approach to such issues.
\n * **Just Satisfaction:** The decision clarifies that a finding of a violation can be considered sufficient just satisfaction for non-pecuniary damage suffered by children in certain cases.<\/p>\n

This decision underscores the importance of protecting family life and children’s rights in disputes, particularly in the context of international abduction and regional gender stereotypes.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KOBLIKOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Koblikova and Others v. Russia:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms in the case of multiple applicants who were disproportionately penalized for participating in public assemblies in St. Petersburg. These assemblies included rallies in support of Alexei Navalny and anti-war protests, which were met with arrests and administrative convictions under the guise of COVID-19 restrictions or other administrative offenses. The Court found that these interferences with the applicants’ freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society.” Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Joinder of the Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
\n * **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants for participating in public assemblies were disproportionate and violated their right to freedom of assembly.
\n * **Other Violations:** The Court also identified violations under other articles of the Convention and its protocols, based on well-established case law, including unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and issues related to administrative convictions for discrediting the Russian military.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided that there was no need to separately address additional complaints under Article 6 (fair trial) of the Convention.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The Court ordered Russia to pay specific amounts to each applicant as compensation for damages and expenses, as detailed in the appended table.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Freedom of Assembly:** The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of assembly, stating that restrictions must be “necessary in a democratic society,” particularly in the context of public protests and rallies.
\n * **Unlawful Detention:** The decision highlights instances of unlawful detention related to arrests and detentions during public assemblies, particularly concerning the procedures for drawing up administrative offense records.
\n * **Impartiality of Tribunals:** The decision emphasizes the need for impartiality in administrative-offense proceedings, particularly concerning the absence of a prosecuting party.
\n * **Suspensive Effect of Appeals:** The decision addresses the issue of the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention sentences, noting that immediate execution of such sentences without the possibility of appeal is a violation.
\n * **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for compensation to victims of violations related to freedom of assembly, unlawful detention, and unfair administrative proceedings in Russia, providing specific amounts for each applicant.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the limitations on freedom of assembly and the standards for fair administrative proceedings in Russia, especially in the period leading up to its withdrawal from the European Convention on Human Rights. It also highlights the Court’s continued scrutiny of Russia’s human rights practices during that period.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF KRYLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This judgment concerns multiple applications against Russia related to the disproportionate measures taken against individuals who organized or participated in public assemblies, particularly in connection with COVID-19 restrictions and anti-war rallies. The applicants complained about their arrest and convictions for administrative offenses, arguing that these measures violated their right to freedom of assembly under Article 11 of the Convention. The Court found that the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating Article 11. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and restrictions on freedom of expression, awarding sums for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage to each applicant. The Court decided to join the applications and declared them admissible, as the facts occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured to address the common issues in the applications, focusing on Article 11 violations and other related complaints under the Convention. It begins by outlining the procedure, facts, and the applicants’ complaints. The Court then addresses the joinder of the applications and confirms its jurisdiction. The core of the judgment examines the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law and previous similar cases. It also considers other alleged violations under well-established case-law, such as unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of impartiality in proceedings. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants. This structure allows the Court to efficiently address multiple similar cases, ensuring consistency in its findings and awards.<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 11 regarding freedom of assembly and the recognition of other violations related to detention and fair trial rights. The judgment reinforces the principle that measures restricting freedom of assembly must be necessary in a democratic society, and it highlights the importance of impartiality in administrative proceedings. The awards for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage also provide a tangible remedy for the applicants. **** This decision may be particularly relevant for Ukrainians, as it addresses the suppression of anti-war protests and the violation of fundamental rights in the context of public assemblies, which could have implications for similar cases involving freedom of expression and assembly.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF LEKIASHVILLI AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Lekiashvilli and Others v. Russia judgment:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Russia in violation of Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights, concerning freedom of assembly, for disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies. These measures included arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to breaches of COVID-19 restrictions. The Court also identified violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and restrictions on private life through the use of facial recognition technology. The cases involve rallies in support of Alexei Navalny and anti-war protests in Ukraine. The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Procedure:** The judgment addresses multiple applications lodged against Russia.
\n * **Facts:** The applicants complained about disproportionate measures taken against them during public assemblies, particularly concerning COVID-19 restrictions.
\n * **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
\n * **Article 11 Violation:** The Court found that the measures taken against the applicants were not “necessary in a democratic society,” thus violating their freedom of assembly.
\n * **Other Violations:** The Court identified additional violations based on established case-law, including unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in proceedings, and the use of facial recognition technology.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** The Court decided not to address additional complaints separately, given the findings on Article 11 and other violations.
\n * **Article 41 Application:** The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Violation of Freedom of Assembly (Article 11):** The Court reiterated that measures restricting freedom of assembly must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society.
\n * **Unlawful Detention (Article 5):** The judgment highlights instances where the detention of protesters was deemed unlawful, particularly concerning the period after compiling an offense report.
\n * **Lack of Impartiality (Article 6):** The Court emphasized the importance of an impartial tribunal, noting the absence of a prosecuting party in administrative offense proceedings as a violation.
\n * **Data Privacy (Article 8):** The decision addresses the misuse of facial recognition technology to identify and prosecute participants in public assemblies, infringing on their right to private life.
\n * **Compensation (Article 41):** The Court awarded specific amounts to each applicant, covering both pecuniary and non-pecuniary damages, setting a precedent for similar cases.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is particularly relevant for understanding the limitations on state power in restricting public assemblies and the protection of fundamental rights, especially in the context of political protests and freedom of expression.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF MAZURIN AND GREBENNIKOV v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This decision of the European Court of Human Rights concerns two applications against Russia regarding inadequate conditions of detention during transport. The applicants, Mazurin and Grebennikov, complained about the conditions they faced while being transported, citing violations of Article 3 of the Convention, which prohibits inhuman or degrading treatment. The Court decided to examine the applications jointly and asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022. The Court found that the conditions of detention during transport were indeed inadequate, constituting a breach of Article 3. Additionally, in one of the applications, the Court found a violation concerning the lack of an effective remedy for complaints about inadequate transport conditions. As a result, the Court awarded each applicant 1,000 euros in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage and costs and expenses.<\/p>\n

The structure of the decision includes sections on procedure, facts, joinder of applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 3, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, and the application of Article 41 (just satisfaction). The decision consolidates the two applications due to their similar subject matter. It reaffirms the Court’s jurisdiction over cases occurring before Russia’s exit from the Convention. The main provision is the finding of a violation of Article 3 due to inadequate detention conditions during transport, referencing previous case-law that sets a standard of at least 0.5 square meters of space per person. The decision also addresses the lack of effective remedies for such complaints, which is a recurring issue in cases against Russia.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation of the standard for adequate detention conditions during transport, particularly the minimum space requirement of 0.5 square meters per person. This standard serves as a benchmark for assessing whether conditions are inhuman or degrading. Additionally, the finding of a violation due to the lack of an effective remedy highlights the systemic issue within the Russian legal system regarding the redress of grievances related to detention conditions. This aspect of the decision may be crucial for future cases and for organizations monitoring human rights in detention facilities.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF PETROSYAN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

This judgment concerns a series of applications against Russia related to the suppression of solo demonstrations, specifically those held near the Kremlin. The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of expression, due to disproportionate measures taken against solo demonstrators. The applicants were penalized for breaching bans on public events in the vicinity of the President’s residence. The ECtHR referenced its previous case-law, noting that similar issues had already been examined and violations found. The Court also addressed other complaints raised by some applicants, finding additional violations related to unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention. Finally, the Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 3,000 to EUR 4,800 in respect of pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows: It begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, including a list of applicants and details of their applications. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications, jurisdiction, alleged violation of Article 10, other alleged violations under well-established case-law, remaining complaints, and the application of Article 41 regarding just satisfaction. The judgment references previous case-law, such as *Nemytov and Others v. Russia*, *Novikova and Others v. Russia*, and *Lashmankin and Others v. Russia*, to support its findings. It also cites cases like *Butkevich v. Russia*, *Tsvetkova and Others v. Russia*, *Korneyeva v. Russia*, *Karelin v. Russia*, and *Martynyuk v. Russia* for the additional violations found.<\/p>\n

The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation that measures against solo demonstrators in Russia, particularly near the Kremlin, were disproportionate and violated Article 10 of the Convention. **** This has implications for how freedom of expression is handled in Russia, especially concerning protests and public assemblies. The judgment also highlights systemic issues within the Russian legal system, such as unlawful detention practices, lack of impartiality in administrative offense proceedings, and the absence of suspensive effect for appeals against administrative detention, all of which constitute violations of the Convention.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF POPOVA AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) issued a judgment in the case of *Popova and Others v. Russia*, concerning disproportionate measures taken against organizers and participants of public assemblies in Russia, particularly in connection with breaches of COVID-19 restrictions. The applicants complained about arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to their participation in public events. The Court examined 21 similar applications jointly, finding violations of Article 11 (freedom of assembly) of the European Convention on Human Rights. Additionally, the Court identified violations related to unlawful detention and lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, referencing its well-established case-law. The Court held that the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not \u201cnecessary in a democratic society\u201d. The Court awarded the applicants sums ranging from EUR 3,500 to EUR 5,000 for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage.<\/p>\n

The judgment is structured as follows: it begins with the procedure, outlining the case’s origin and notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding disproportionate measures during public assemblies. The legal analysis includes the joinder of applications and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction, as the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention. The core of the judgment addresses the alleged violation of Article 11, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality. It also considers other alleged violations under existing case-law, particularly concerning unlawful deprivation of liberty and fairness of administrative proceedings. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41, awarding compensation to the applicants. The appendix lists each application, detailing the applicant’s information, the nature of the public event, the administrative offense, the final domestic decision, other Convention violations, and the amount awarded.<\/p>\n

**** The most important provision of this decision is the reaffirmation that even during exceptional circumstances like a pandemic, restrictions on freedom of assembly must be proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. The decision highlights that measures such as arrests and administrative penalties for violating COVID-19 restrictions during public events can constitute a violation of Article 11 if they are disproportionate. Furthermore, the judgment underscores the importance of fair legal proceedings, particularly regarding the absence of a prosecuting party and unlawful detention, reinforcing the need for impartiality and adherence to the rule of law even in administrative offense cases. This decision also awards sums to the applicants, which means that Russia must pay the compensation.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SAMOYLENKO AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Samoylenko and Others v. Russia*:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 11 of the Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees freedom of assembly, in a series of cases involving individuals who were penalized for participating in public events, particularly rallies in support of Alexei Navalny, during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Court found that the measures taken by Russian authorities, such as arrests and administrative convictions, were disproportionate, especially considering the easing of COVID-19 restrictions at the time. The ECtHR also identified violations related to unlawful detention and the lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, awarding compensation to the applicants for damages. The Court emphasized that while states have a wide margin of appreciation in dealing with public health crises, the blanket bans on protests were not justified when other activities were permitted with some restrictions.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

* **Joinder of Applications:** The Court decided to examine all the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Jurisdiction:** The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
\n * **Violation of Article 11:** The Court found that the measures against the applicants for participating in public assemblies were disproportionate and not “necessary in a democratic society.” It noted that while COVID-19 restrictions were in place, a complete ban on protests was unjustified, especially when other activities were allowed.
\n * **Other Violations:** The Court also found violations related to unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and the lack of suspensive effect of appeals against administrative detention, based on its well-established case-law.
\n * **Remaining Complaints:** The Court did not find it necessary to address additional complaints regarding the fairness of administrative proceedings separately, given the existing findings of violations.
\n * **Article 41 (Just Satisfaction):** The Court ordered Russia to pay the applicants specified amounts in damages.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

* **Disproportionate Measures:** The decision highlights that even during a public health crisis, restrictions on freedom of assembly must be proportionate and justified. Blanket bans on protests, while other activities are permitted, are likely to be considered a violation of Article 11.
\n * **Lack of Proportionality Analysis:** The Court emphasized the importance of domestic courts conducting a detailed and meaningful proportionality analysis when imposing sanctions for breaches of assembly regulations.
\n * **Unlawful Detention and Impartiality:** The decision underscores the importance of ensuring lawful detention and impartiality in administrative proceedings related to public assemblies.
\n * **Compensation:** The decision sets a precedent for compensation to victims of disproportionate measures against participants in public assemblies.<\/p>\n

I hope this analysis is helpful.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SOKOLOV AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of *Sokolov and Others v. Russia*:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision**:<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled that Russia violated Article 10 of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (freedom of expression) in several cases. The applicants had faced various restrictions on their freedom of expression, often resulting in convictions for extremism or inciting hatred through online activities. The ECtHR found that Russian authorities failed to strike a fair balance between restricting expression and upholding the right to freedom of expression, as required by the Convention. The Court also identified violations related to unreasonably long pre-trial detention, absence of a prosecuting party from the proceedings, and administrative arrest and detention, referencing its well-established case-law. As a result, the Court awarded the applicants compensation for damages.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions**:<\/p>\n

* **Joinder of Applications**: The Court decided to examine the applications jointly due to their similar subject matter.
\n * **Jurisdiction**: The Court asserted its jurisdiction because the events occurred before Russia ceased being a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.
\n * **Admissibility**: The complaints of three applicants (Barabash, Mukhin, and Parfenov) in application no. 1488\/16 were declared inadmissible. The remaining applications were deemed admissible.
\n * **Article 10 Violations**: The Court found that the restrictions on the applicants’ freedom of expression violated Article 10 of the Convention. It reiterated that freedom of expression is a cornerstone of a democratic society and that any restrictions must be convincingly justified.
\n * **Other Violations**: The Court also found violations related to detention conditions and procedural issues, referencing existing case-law on unreasonably long pre-trial detention, absence of a prosecuting party from the proceedings, and administrative arrest and detention.
\n * **Article 41 Application**: The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants, considering the damages suffered and referencing previous similar cases.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use**:<\/p>\n

* **Freedom of Expression**: The decision reinforces the importance of freedom of expression in a democratic society, emphasizing that restrictions must be convincingly justified and proportionate.
\n * **Extremism and Hate Speech**: The Court found that Russia’s interpretation and application of laws related to extremism and hate speech were excessively broad, leading to disproportionate restrictions on freedom of expression.
\n * **Procedural Rights**: The decision highlights the importance of fair and timely judicial proceedings, particularly in cases involving detention and restrictions on fundamental rights.
\n * **Precedent**: The decision references several previous cases, indicating a consistent pattern of violations related to freedom of expression and procedural rights in Russia.
\n * **Compensation**: The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants, acknowledging the damages they suffered as a result of the violations.<\/p>\n

****<\/p>\n

The decision in *Sokolov and Others v. Russia* has implications for Ukrainians, as one of the applicants was convicted for re-posting a video critical of Russian authorities’ and Orthodox Church’s support of separatism in Ukraine. This highlights the potential for restrictions on freedom of expression related to opinions about the conflict in Ukraine and the broader political context.<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

CASE OF SOROKIN AND OTHERS v. RUSSIA<\/strong><\/h3>\n

<\/a><\/p>\n

Here’s a breakdown of the Sorokin and Others v. Russia judgment from the European Court of Human Rights:<\/p>\n

1. **Essence of the Decision:**<\/p>\n

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has ruled against Russia in the case of Sorokin and Others v. Russia, concerning disproportionate measures taken against individuals who organized or participated in public assemblies. The Court found violations of Article 11 of the Convention, which guarantees freedom of assembly, due to arrests and convictions for administrative offenses related to the dispersal of these assemblies. Additionally, the Court identified other violations under various articles of the Convention and its Protocols, based on its well-established case-law, including unlawful deprivation of liberty, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and restrictions on freedom of expression. The Court has determined that the interferences with the applicants\u2019 freedom of assembly were not necessary in a democratic society. The Court awarded monetary compensation to the applicants for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

2. **Structure and Main Provisions:**<\/p>\n

The judgment begins by outlining the procedure, including the origin of the applications and the notification to the Russian Government. It then presents the facts of the case, summarizing the applicants’ complaints regarding disproportionate measures taken against them during public assemblies. The legal analysis includes the joinder of the applications due to their similar subject matter and confirms the Court’s jurisdiction, as the events occurred before Russia ceased to be a party to the Convention on September 16, 2022.<\/p>\n

The judgment addresses the alleged violation of Article 11 of the Convention, referencing established case-law on freedom of assembly and proportionality of interference. It concludes that the measures taken against the applicants were disproportionate and not necessary in a democratic society, thus violating Article 11. The Court also addresses other alleged violations under well-established case-law, such as unlawful deprivation of liberty and lack of impartiality in proceedings, finding additional violations of the Convention and its Protocols.<\/p>\n

The judgment concludes by addressing remaining complaints, stating that there is no need to deal separately with additional complaints under Articles 6 and 13, given the findings already made. Finally, it addresses the application of Article 41 of the Convention, awarding specific sums to the applicants as compensation for non-pecuniary damage and costs.<\/p>\n

3. **Main Provisions for Use:**<\/p>\n

The most important provisions of this decision are those confirming the violation of Article 11 regarding freedom of assembly and the violations of other rights based on the Court’s established case-law. This judgment reinforces the importance of protecting the right to peaceful assembly and ensuring that any restrictions are proportionate and necessary in a democratic society. The decision also highlights specific issues such as unlawful detention, lack of impartiality in administrative proceedings, and restrictions on freedom of expression, providing a basis for future cases concerning similar violations.<\/p>\n

The appended table provides a detailed list of the applications, including the applicants’ names, dates of the public events, administrative or criminal offenses, penalties, and the amounts awarded for non-pecuniary damage and costs. This information is crucial for understanding the specific circumstances of each case and the corresponding compensation.<\/p>\n

**** This decision is relevant to Ukraine and Ukrainians as it addresses the violation of fundamental rights related to freedom of assembly and fair legal proceedings, which are particularly important in the context of ongoing human rights concerns in the region.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

CASE OF FARMANYAN AND OTHERS v. ARMENIA Here’s a breakdown of the European Court of Human Rights’ decision in the case of Farmanyan and Others v. Armenia: 1. **Essence of the Decision:** The European Court of Human Rights found Armenia in violation of Article 2 of the European Convention on Human Rights in connection with…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"pmpro_default_level":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[129],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-11985","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-echr-decisions","pmpro-has-access"],"acf":{"patreon-level":0},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11985","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=11985"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/11985\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=11985"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=11985"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/lexcovery.com\/en\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=11985"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}